BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint Case No. :108 of 2016
Date of Institution : 23.05.2016
Date of Decision : 16.01.2020
Devender son of Shri Ved Parkash resident of village Dudhwa, Tehisl Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers- 3rd Floor Akurli Road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai- 400101, through its Sr.General Manager/Managing Director.
- Supreme Mobiles Limited (authoirsed dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Limited), head office-473-74, Automobile Market, Hisar, through its Branch Manager, branch office-Loharu Road, Bhiwani.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: Sh. Nagender Singh, President.
Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Sh.A.S.Dabas, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.R.K.Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.
Sh.Chakshu Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased vehicle Bolero bearing Chasis No.E2F73756 Engine No.GRE4F69113 from opposite party No.2 on 17.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.6,31,200/-. At the time of selling vehicle, the opposite parties have claimed that anti-rust coating-lamination and other added features will enhance life of vehicle. The vehicle in question was of inferior quality as it started to show different type of symptoms of manufacturing defect such as rusting of inner and outer body of the vehicle, front bumper got tilted/aligned towards one side, driver and rear windows are got tilted from one end directions making spacing which caught dust inside the fully air conditioned vehicle started to make uneven and uneasy noises. The complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre on 31.12.2014 and further on 12.03.2015 for getting the service done and to get the faults and defects removed but every time the opposite parties assured that the problems would be got resolved but the grievance of the complainant could not be redressed even at the time of third service. In the month of July, 2015, there developed new problem as the gear of the same cannot be shifted and it was moved through pushing. The services only cure the problems temporarily for a day and from the next day same problems starts to haunt again. The opposite parties have charged Rs.28,000/- in excess as they had received Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,99,000/- but issued the final bill of Rs.6,31,000/- and also not given the loyalty bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to redress the grievance and also got served legal notice but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate replies. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that there is no privity of contract between the replying opposite party and complainant. The vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purposes, therefore, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act. As per warranty conditions, the defect in paint is not covered under warranty, therefore, the complaint is also not maintainable. The complainant had not alleged any deficiency in service on unfair trade practice but despite that a solution was offered to the complainant to get his vehicle repaired, free of costs, but the complainant was adamant for replacement of the vehicle which was unwarranted and uncalled for. A letter was written by the opposite party No.2 to bring the vehicle to dealer but the complainant never approached the dealer after July, 2015 with any kind of problem. There is no manufacturing defect as the complainant has not produced any expert opinion regarding this. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as locus standi, time barred, estoppal and concealment of material facts from this Forum etc. It has been submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle after getting the full inspection through its mechanic/driver as his sweet will and satisfaction. The complainant had never lodged any complaint regarding the defect, if any, in the vehicle before filing of the present complaint. The replying opposite party has never asked for anti-rust pain and added features as the same were got done/fixed as per the wishes of the complainant. The three services of the vehicle were got done on 31.12.2014, 12.03.2015 and 31.07.015 as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has never visited/approached the service centre on 21.09.2015. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the reply to the legal notice was also sent to the advocate of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite party. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence Affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C12 and closed the evidence on 30.10.2017. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 had tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1. No evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2 has been led and the same was closed by court order on 25.03.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there developed defect in the vehicle such as rusting of inner and outer body of the vehicle, front bumper got tilted/aligned towards one side, driver and rear windows are got tilted from one end directions making spacing which caught dust inside the fully air conditioned vehicle started to make uneven and uneasy noises, within short span of the purchase of vehicle and due to these manufacturing defect, the vehicle was not in a position to ply on road. It has been further argued that the opposite party No.2 had charged Rs.28,000/- in excess as it had charged Rs.50,000/- on 16.10.2014 and Rs.5,99,000/- on 17.10.2014 but bill of Rs.6,31,200/- has been issued and even no loyalty bonus of Rs.10,000/- has been granted to him despite the fact that he was using the vehicle of same brand.
7. On other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties have argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the complainant has not produced on record any expert opinion regarding this and the problem of paint was not covered under warranty policy. The complainant has been asked to bring the vehicle to the dealer for getting the vehicle repaired free of costs, if there remains any defect, but the complainant had not approached the dealer after July, 2015. It has been further argued that all the three services were got done as per the satisfaction of the complainant. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have further argued that there was no scheme of loyalty bonus of Rs.10,000/- and no excess amount was charged from the complainant. The amount of Rs.28,000/- was charged on account of temporary registration number and cost of insurance policy.
8. After hearing the argued as well as going through the material available on the case file, it is established that the contentions put-forth by the learned counsels for the opposite parties have weight as the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in the replies that the complainant were offered to get his vehicle repaired, free of costs, if there remains any defect, but the complainant has never approached the opposite parties after July, 2015. The opposite party No.1 in para No.3 of the reply has mentioned that on 31st July, 2015 the vehicle had run 20146 KMs without any reported defect and the complainant has not even denied this fact. The complainant has also failed to produce on the case file any evidence/record to show that there was manufacturing defect in the unit and for removing the defect he has to visit the opposite parties many a times. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as N.Balraj Vs. Agile Phototechniks (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. II (2016) CPJ 57 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that “Complainant has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that there was any manufacturing defect in the machinery”. The complainant has also failed to prove on the case file that when he had purchased the vehicle a scheme regarding providing of loyalty bonus of Rs.10,000/- was floated by the opposites parties. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned in the replies that no excess amount of Rs.28,000/- has been charged rather the amount has been charged on account of temporary registration number and cost of insurance policy. Since the complainant has not produced the vehicle to the opposite parties since July, 2015, and even not produced any evidence or mechanical report to the effect that the vehicle remained defective thereafter, it clearly shows that the vehicle is still in running condition without any defect/problem. The complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the complaint deserve dismissal.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present case and accordingly dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 16.01.2020.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
